U.S. Internet down by law, not market

This is like the "climax state" in an ecosystem.

(To the right, an analysis of the UK entertainment market from Ofcom, for the BBC.)

Antitrust law acts like a forest fire in such an ecosystem. It turns a peat bog back into a swamp. It lets the redwood spread its seed, and creates new competition.

It was to guarantee competition that the U.S. passed the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and many other countries, like the U.K., followed suit, separating the ownership of infrastructure from control of the customer.

During this decade the U.S. has reversed course. Only the phone company can provide you broadband over "its" lines. Same with the cable operator.

The result is a duopoly. You don't have choices. You pay $40-50/month. And the most efficient way to raising profits for the providers is by limiting your access to bits.

The incumbents even have the lobbying muscle to restrict competing technologies, such as wireless. Our electromagnetic spectrum has been sold to the same monopolies who control our broadband, and they are fighting every attempt to create competition.

Contrast this with the U.K., which has not allowed this climax state to come about (so far).

There has been consolidation, but the market has 5 major players, and several minor ones. Consumers there pay the equivalent of just $20/month for broadband, and can choose to get it through a mobile phone carrier "dongle."

ISPs are free to set terms and conditions of service, but if those terms become onorous the consumer can simply change carriers. The incentives are in favor of better service and faster speeds.

The point is that the "absence of government interference in the market" so beloved of the monopolist is, in fact, interference on the monopolist's behalf.

It's a choice we have made, to run our Internet market this way. And we can make another choice.

The U.S. Internet market needs the equivalent of a forest fire. We, the people have the power to start one.